The Herald Sun ideologue insists he isn’t always sure. And he says he admires doubt in others; he tells the program he’s attracted to Tony Abbott because the Prime Minister is not afraid to question his convictions and prevailing attitudes.

It is dogmatism that wrecks political debate, wilful certainty where there isn’t any. The words “I’m not sure” are banned from the game, and the solutions are even further away as a result.

Each day, we doubt. We certainly doubt Andrew Bolt ever demonstrates indecision in his columns — but we wholeheartedly support the sentiment.

Anyone with a scientific background of conjecture and refutation knows what Bolt is doing, appropriating “doubt” and cloaking himself in scientific “scepticism” to play at being an “objective” truth-telling commentator.

Even as a rhetorical strategy this is absurd, as the court found in relation to Bolt’s “objective” commentary on aboriginal ancestry.

Don’t give him the time of day crikey. This is not a game. This is fraud.

Well said, Susan, and it’s probably worth listing just some of the things that he appears to have no doubt about. The invasion of Iraq was a good thing. People who support Indigenous Australians in their quest for justice, are part of a self serving ‘aboriginal industry’. Climate change is a conspiracy hatched up by greenies, lefties and scientists, to establish elite positions for themselves. Everything that the Labor government did was wrong. Everything that the Greens even think is wrong. The independents sold out Australia.
And possibly most bizarrely, that by being an affluent, white, right winger living in prosperous, peaceful Australia, you are somehow a greatly put upon part of an oppressed minority.

Indecision isn’t the issue. It’s about epistemological modesty, which includes local humility about what is outside your expertise and broader framework of knowledge that is probabilistic (not absolute), informed by the scientific method. It’s about basic logic, internal consistency. It’s about being able to frame an opposing argument clearly and fairly, sometimes known as the charitable principle. It’s about pluralism — ie. the capacity to accept and comprehend that there are ideas and values which are independently worthy notwithstanding that they are mutually contradictory –eg. an introspective life and extroverted life.
Bolt display none of the above. He professes worldly expertise on economics and policy when he has none at all. He is incapable of honestly and fairly representing the views of others. If he can use a pernicious misrepresentation to score a point, it is certain he will. He is constantly deploying Manichean dichotomies about other viewpoints as if there aren’t kernels of human flourishing in every corner of politics.